Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well as that renown socialist Adam Smith once said:
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
"Wealth of Nations” (1776)
The top 1% pretty much pays for almost everything regarding payroll taxes at this point which is a disaster as it pertains to income for the treasury.
The top rate now after deductions is basically 35%. Before under Reagan it was found that when he reduced it to 28% the income to the treasury doubled. Problem was that for every extra dollar the Republican brought in, the Democrats spent $1.78 of NEW spending.
What is the limit on paying for everyone's life?
There isn't enough OTHER PEOPLE'S money to pay for it all.
Thatcher said the failure of socialism is that there is NEVER enough OTHER PEOPLE'S money so it eventually fails. We have the cancer of socialism within the heart of our Capitalist Democratic Republic and it is bringing everything down.
Everyone needs to man up, not just the most wealthy through class warfare.
We don't have a taxing problem, we have a massive spending problem.
"Give more money to millionaires?" That tells you all you need to know about the arrogance of government. It's not your money to give, Claire.
This is the arrogance of liberals.
"Millionaires" already "give" 36% of THEIR income to the US government. How much do you "give"? Well, I say it is not enough and by royal decree, I command that you give more!
Unless you "give" the same percentage, or the same gross amount, I think that you have a poor moral position to cast dispersions.
It is not "your money" either. It is the money of the people who earned it-not yours or the federal government's. This money was never yours or the federal government's in the first place. Do you presume to own the incomes and assets of everyone in America?
Before under Reagan it was found that when he reduced it to 28% the income to the treasury doubled.
You are aware that even a freshman stats student knows that you haven't demonstrated causality?
Quote:
Thatcher said the failure of socialism is that there is NEVER enough OTHER PEOPLE'S money so it eventually fails.
You are aware that Adam Smith was not a socialist?
Quote:
We have the cancer of socialism within the heart of our Capitalist Democratic Republic and it is bringing everything down.
Hypochondria can be cured with sufficient therapy.
Quote:
We don't have a taxing problem, we have a massive spending problem.
I don't have a problem with reducing government spending, of course my problem with government spending came to me a bit quicker than most folks on this board. So, when the cutting is to be done I will be watching with great anticipation to see where the sacred cows are and to whom they belong.
1. "The subject of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State."
Well as that renown socialist Adam Smith once said:
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
"Wealth of Nations” (1776)
Exactly! and that is why the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of the taxes, more than their proportion of income, which is 50%.
But some greedy, grasping, envious elements in our society believe that "the rich" should pay 80% or 100% or 120% of the taxes instead of "only" 70%.
1. "The subject of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State."
That is an argument for a flat tax, chief, not the immolation of the rich that the Left is now screaming for.
Well as that renown socialist Adam Smith once said:
" . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
""Wealth of Nations” (1776)
First she says we need more tax revenue to fix the deficit then she goes about taxing the rich more to help the middle class. So which is it? I guest neither.
Well as that renown socialist Adam Smith once said:
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
"Wealth of Nations” (1776)
It would be more intellectually honest of you to quote the entire passage, ovcatto. This quote doesn't mean what you think it does, as will be made clear by reading the entire passage.
Quote:
The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
The part you left out and replaced with ellipses is bolded above. Smith was talking about charging those with larger, more magnificent homes higher property taxes, which would result in the inequitable payment of taxes amongst individuals, with larger property tax bills necessarily paid by the rich. Those of modest income would pay very little property tax, based on their modest homes. And the rich would pay a much larger property tax, based on their larger and more magnificent homes. Note that this type of system already exists. Property owners are taxed according to the value of their property.
As such, the exact same condition would exist via a flat income tax (everyone pays the same tax rate). Those of modest income would pay very little. Those who earned a lot would pay a lot more.
1. "The subject of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State."
In other words, a flat tax.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
